Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that this case is completely covered in favour of the plaintiffs by the judgment dated 20th March, 2015 of this Court in Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals 1 read with the judgment of the Supreme Court on the appeal, preferred there against as Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation2. 

                                    Indian Patent No.       209816
                                    Title                   "Beta-Amino            Heterocyclic
                                                            Dipeptidyl Peptidase Inhibitors For
                                                            The Treatment Or Prevention of
                                                            Diabetes"
                                    Drug covered            Sitagliptin
                                    Number of Claims        20


                              2015 SCC OnLine Del 8227

                              (2015) 6 SCC 807






                                Claims          covering     1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16
                               Sitagliptin                  and 17
                               Claim        specifically    19
                               covering Sitagliptin and
                               its salts
                               Patentee                   Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
                                                          (formerly known as Merck & Co.,
                                                          Inc.)
                               Indian Application No.     26/CHENP/2004
                               Date of filing in India    January 6, 2004

10. It is also alleged that the defendant is advertising, offering for sale and exporting allegedly infringing products. If the defendant's activities are allowed to continue unchecked, the plaint expresses an apprehension that the defendant would flood the market with the infringing products.

11. Mr. Pravin Anand has also invited my attention to the fact that in an identical challenge, interim injunction was granted in favour of the Sitagliptin products of the plaintiffs by this Court in Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation1 and the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, which did not choose to interfere with the order of restraint, passed by this Court against the defendant in the said case, restraining the defendant from further manufacturing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate. Though in the peculiar facts of that case, the Supreme Court, even while maintaining the injunction against further manufacturing of the infringing products, permitted M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals limited to sell existing stocks, Mr. Pravin Anand points out that the said case was the first instance of such a challenge and that thereafter, as many as 47 injunctions have been granted, in all of which there has been an injunction not only of manufacture of the infringing products but also of sale of infringing products in the market. A list of such orders has been provided with the plaint. He also points out that Merck Sharp and Dohme Corporation1 proceeded to trial and it was finally decreed vide judgment and decree dated 7th October, 2015 3.